The North Carolina story is new, this month. However, there is a similar story from about a year ago, but I didn't check it out.

I think the issue here is that a state government inspector has the power to require any and all students with a lunch that doesn't pass their "healthy lunch" test, to eat a school lunch.

I get the concept, but I think it goes a bit far when a parent is essentially told by the state that her kid's lunch wasn't healthy enough, therefore a school lunch will be required. Don't you think this 4 year old may have been a bit confused and overwhelmed? At least they didn't confiscate her lunch from home.

Is the story that I posted the "real" story? I can't say for sure, but it sounds legit. I recall the news saying that the mother was concerned because her kid was eating two lunches every day and that she was eating too much. Maybe another kid in the school?

We're talking about the same incident. Here's a bit more:
"a spokesperson for the Division of Child Development says [the child's lunch] appears to have met the requirements, and adds that the girl's parents should not have been charged."

I'm all for healthy eating, am incensed at the pure $#!+ schools served until recently (presuming it has really changed), and was fortunate enough to have been served full, very well-balanced school lunches from first grade through grad school, but this inspector and school went way overboard.

"“So I went to the cafeteria to make sure she had no fee and it’s not being charged to her account yet,” she continued, ” but what concerned me was that I got a letter from the principal and it says students who do not bring a healthy lunch will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria. So if I don’t stay on top of her account on a weekly basis there’s that opportunity that charges could be put on her account and then if I let it go too far then it’s like I’m going to have a big battle.”

The principal of West Hoke Elementary, Jackie Samuels, says none of the children’s parents were asked to pay for the school food. While the parents may not have to pay, it was still an expense for the school to provide the extra food. A phone call to the Hoke County Schools Superintendent to inquire as to how much additional expense this would impose on the school was not returned."

Well the above quote from the article is what I read, and it seems clear that parents had not been charged. isobars is apparently getting information from a different source (Fox?) that he hasn't disclosed yet in full that conflicts with respect to a charge being imposed.

Which one is more believable? Given what isobars has said on this topic in his number of posts overall, in my view, his commentary lacks reasonable depth and credibility.

Is the story that I posted the "real" story? I can't say for sure, but it sounds legit.

.

So I guess I did have an inkling that it may not be as stated.

I just chased the story on the Internet after it was brought it up because I recalled hearing about it. I didn't look up Civitas to see who they were. My mistake, but I have also experienced plenty of "spin" from the liberal media as well. Typically, it's by omission, so you don't get the full story which frequently paints a completely different picture.

I try not to "spin" facts, but I also don't spend hours researching. On the other hand, I generally try to stay with opinions which is usually safer ground. You can question them, but they are what they are.

techno--I don't buy your disclaimer. I think we are all entitled to our opinions, but to be credible we need to have some commitment to seeking truth in the underlying facts. If you use unreliable sources--Faux news, the Heartland Institute, Daily Kos, junkscience, Rush Limbaugh--without turning on your bullshit detectors you sacrifice your credibility. You will note that I don't really believe Huffington, Daily Kos, or the Nation, but I use them to try to chase down independent analyses where the authors might not have a political agenda. Here there is just enough in the Daily Kos to sense that Rush has made this story up.

There are numerous sites out there, left and right, which will spin the story of the day. If we suspect spin, and want to be taken seriously, we will look at both sides of the story. It is why I read what you write here, to get a different perspective and look for areas where we might agree. But getting the facts right comes first.

We are just talking here and don't always research the stuff we post.Techno said he wasn't sure of this one so we could turn up our own BS detectors.
I have learned a lot here esp. from those of you who research a good bit.
Thanks to you all.
PS it has been blowing 5.0 for three days.The best wave spots are not towering but the are closed out because the break is piling up too close together for any of us.

KC--It is not a simple matter, but the Republican littany on this is absolutely vile and full of lies. It is certainly true that we are facing an epidemic of obesity in this country, and it is costing us, collectively, trillions. The costs are to private insurers, health care, and public health care costs--as well as substantial loss of quality of life. It is also inarguable that the health care crisis associated with obesity is worse in the red states than the blue states.

It is not so clear what to do about it. A huge part of it is bad decisions by people who should know better, egged on by advertising, television chefs that hawk southern cooking while they hide their diabetes, and yes, subsidies for fructose. In the abstract, I agree with a certain type of libertarian approach that people should make their own decisions--and pay the price of those decisions with the health consequences and with higher insurance premiums. Some have argued that a soda tax would reduce deaths and generate money to pay for the health care impacts (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/12/145112865/could-a-soda-tax-prevent-26-000-deaths-per-year) But others disagree (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/soda-tax-would-boost-government-revenue-not-solve-fat-problem-study-says.html), with what I find to be pretty pursuasive arguments. A mild sugar tax might help pay for the damage of obesity, but probably won't lead to massive weight loss or changed behavior. After all, if a mirror doesn't convince you that you've gotten fat....

Michelle Obama has tried the education approach, the high road for sure. But the Republican myth-making machine, ever the tool of corporate greed, has ginned up a story line that is absolutely over the top:

Quote:

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, in a conversation overheard at Reagan National Airport in Washington, said of Michelle Obama: “She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself.”

and then there is:

Quote:

|Meghan Daum

A few weeks ago I was at the Denver airport when I overheard a conversation between two men sitting near me. They were eating some form of grab-and-go airport lunch when one man, between bites, suddenly raised his voice and called Michelle Obama something that can't be printed in a family newspaper.

"She wants to control what we eat!" he continued. "She wants the government to be in charge of what's in our fridge!"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, she is trying to use the bully pulpit to encourage responsible behavior. The responses, like that of Rush Limbaugh that hijacked this thread, are dishonest and try to stir paranoia over the Federal government controlling the food for kids.
Such scurrilous stories should not be repeated without at least thinking about the credibility of the source. We expect such foulness from Isobars, Rush and Gingrich, but not from techno, and I'm simply asking him to think and not be so paranoid.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum